-
HC - Writ allowed - In absence of ‘live-link’ between investigation wing data and Revenue’s belief that there has been escapement of income, notice u/s 148 set aside.
Asset Reconstruction Company India Pvt. Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner of Incometax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16612 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
HC - Transfer of entire shareholding in its subsidiary to third party is not slump sale u/s 2(42C) r.w. Sec 50B.
UTV Software Communications Ltd Vs Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -16
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16602 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
HC - Absence of plant and machinery would not lead to a conclusion that there was no ‘manufacturing’ activity - Allows Sec. 10B benefit.
Unique Gem & Jewellery Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16584 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 10B
-
S. 276C Prosecution: If the Appeal is admitted on substantial questions of law, there is no justification for the DCIT to threaten the assessee with prosecution. Even if such prosecution is launched, the same shall not proceed till the pendency of the Appeal
Deepak Fertilizers and Petrochemicals Corporation Limited vs. ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16562 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 276C
-
HC - Since Investigation Wing had no material to believe that the donors of Trust were beneficiaries of the bogus entries, notice u/s 148 set aside.
BHANUMATI MALRAJ KABALI VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 19 (1) (3) AND ANR.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16558 (HC-BOMBAY) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=75466&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Once the defects are removed within the time permitted by the department, the same would relate back to the original date of filing of the return - Notice u/s 143(2) is not valid.
ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16557 (HC-BOMBAY) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=75468&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - No penalty to be levied u/s 271(1)(c) for loss on account of foreign exchange fluctuation claimed as revenue expenditure disallowed. Mere rejection of claim made by the AO would not by itself lead to imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5, MUMBAI VERSUS M/S. PRATIBHA SHIPPING COMPANY LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16555 (HC-BOMBAY) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=75439&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 45 Capital Gains: The allottee gets title to property on issue of allotment letter. The payment of installments is only a follow¬-up action. Taking delivery of possession is only a formality. Accordingly, the date of allotment is the date on which the purchaser of a residential unit can be stated to have acquired the property (CBDT Circulars applied)
PCIT vs. Vembu Vaidyanathan
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16549 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 45
-
S. 147: Even in a case where return is accepted without scrutiny, the AO cannot proceed mechanically and on erroneous information supplied to him by investigation wing. If AO acts merely upon information submitted by investigation wing and on total lack of application of mind, the reopening is invalid
Akshar Builders and Developers vs. ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16548 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 147
-
S. 254(2): The law in CIT vs. Ramesh Electrical Co 203 ITR 497 (Bom) that failure to deal with an argument does not constitute a 'mistake apparent from the record' does not apply to a case where a fundamental submission is omitted to be considered by the ITAT. The omission is apparent from the record and should be rectified by the ITAT
Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt Ltd vs. ITAT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16500 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
S. 147 Reopening of Bogus Sales/ Purchases: If the AO disallowed 2.5% of alleged bogus purchases during the regular assessment, he cannot reopen on the ground that as per N. K. Proteins Ltd 2017-TIOL-23-SC-IT the entire amount should have been disallowed as this amounts to change of opinion
Saurabh Suryakant Mehta vs. ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16499 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 147
-
S. 147 Reopening of S. 143(1) Intimations: The mere fact that the return is processed u/s 143(1) does not give the AO a carte blanche to issue a reopening notice. The basic condition precedent of 'reason to believe' applies even to s. 143(1) intimations. If the assessee claims the facts recorded in the reasons are not correct, the order on objection must deal with them. Otherwise an adverse inference can be drawn against the Revenue
Ankita A. Choksey vs. ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16498 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 147, 143(1)
-
S. 40(a)(ia): The second proviso to s. 40(a)(ia) is beneficial to the assessee and is declaratory and curative in nature. Accordingly, it must be given retrospective effect
PCIT vs. Perfect Circle India Pvt. Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16496 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 40(a)(ia)
-
HC - Explanation 5A below Section 271 of the Act would apply only in case of searched person and cannot be extended to the person other than the searched person.
Rajkumar Gulab Badgujar Vs Pr Commissioner of Income-tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16457 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section Sec. 271(1)(c)
-
HC - There was legitimate nexus between Investigation Wing report and Income Escapement as such reassessment proceedings upheld.
Avirat Star Homes Venture Private Limited Vs Income Tax Officer 15(1)(2) and ors
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16454 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
HC - Since land and building earlier in the possession of the Assessee continued to remain with it, therefore any receipt from transfer of TDR as a compensation from transfer of development rights cannot be taxed as a capital gain.
THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-17 VERSUS SHRI MANOHAR H. KAKWANI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16443 (HC-BOMBAY) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=75222&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Income from sale of shares upon settlement by settlor by a trust shall be chargeable under the head long term capital gains, and not under ‘business income’.
Vernan Pvt Trust Vs The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax23
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16424 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
HC - Failure of the assessee to intimate the changes made in object clause to CIT(Exemptions) did not alter the foundational characteristics of the Trust as the additional objects were also in the nature of charitable activities. Exemption cannot be denied.
CIT (EXEMPTIONS) , MUMBAI VERSUS M/S. BHANSALI TRUST
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16409 (HC-BOMBAY) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=75120&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Default by employers in not issuing Form 16 TDS certificates to employees prima facie makes employers liable to prosecution u/s 405 of the Indian Penal Code.
Ramprakash Biswanath Shroff vs. CIT (TDS) (Bombay High Court)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16408 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
HC - Merely holding shares for a short period will not convert capital gain into business income. If the assessee has two portfolios, one for "Investment" and other for "Trading" and if the investments are out of own funds and not borrowed funds, the gains have to be assessed as STCG.
CIT vs. Viksit Engineering Ltd (Bombay High Court)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16407 (HC-BOMBAY)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.